Quote from billydamanNo, No....NO! You point out this instance likes is the "norm" and in reality, stuff like this is anything but the norm.
Quote from billydamanYou know, you have a point here but this is the exception, not the rule. What get's me is, instead of communicating with the person that saying these offensive things, they immediately go for the political jugular. That's the issue the democrats have, its more important to make political hay out of instances like this to rile up the base to win elections instead of taking steps to address the issue. Do not fool yourself and think Democrat politicians really care about how insensitive some of these people are, all they care about is how they can politicize it.
Quote from IcecreamMan80Not arguing against your point. Gerrymandering has a lot to do with it.
How do you propose we change it, given it's prevalence and history?
Quote from cloudmanStephen, personally, I don't see the overabundance of racists on the political right.
I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.
Quote from Jindal »
Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the State of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with.
Quote from Palin »
Free speech is an endangered species. Those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.
Quote from Cohen »
Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?)
Quote from cloudmanIn my experience a collectivist view of the world is inherently more racist than an individualistic view of the world.
Quote from Fluffy_BunnyUnfortunately we dont live in a Sim City so it is not that easy to just re-organize everything. I highly doubt that poor city design had anything to do with auto lobbying and had more to do with the natural growth and progression of a major city.
Quote from bitterrootI'm somewhat confused by what you're saying, but let me spell this out very clearly:
(1) It is difficult for entity A to achieve goal X. A can only achieve X through active persistence or skill.
(2) It is easy for entity B to achieve goal X. Entity B can achieve X without putting forth much effort or skill.
Therefore it makes logical sense that people would be impressed or congratulatory when A achieves X, but indifferent when B achieves X.
Quote from TheLarchIf you are interested in a reason why, take a step back and first answer the question: By whom.
Quote from Jay13xQuote from Maraxus of KeldSo apparently some people have called out Game of Thrones for it's use of rape. Anyone hear about it?
I've heard about it but I don't think anything in Game of Thrones condones rape. If anything, it's a condemnation of the culture that leads to rapes, especially in times of war.
Quote from Maraxus of KeldSo apparently some people have called out Game of Thrones for it's use of rape. Anyone hear about it?
Quote from bitterrootThere is a very simple explanation for this: it is typically much easier for a woman to have sex with many men than it is for a man to have sex with many women (assuming our hypothetical man and woman are equally attractive).
Quote from italofocaI remembers reading a sci-fi story about a planet with a colony of pacifist anarchist that was able to subvert an expedition from a statist planetary nation by civil disobedience and and showing the rank-and-file of the expedition a better way to live than being cogs in a big government machine. The system analyst in me quickly started seeing problems with the setup since the colony only worked because it had a low population that was spread out over a large area. They had one significant dissenter in their history and that guy went mad before he could do significant damage. Once the colony starts growing, the competition for resources will increase and the dissenters will start banding together into gangs and then armies.
Quote from HighrollerForget traffic laws, how the hell would roads work in an anarcho-capitalistic society?
One of the reasons society functions smoothly is specifically because the government owns things like roads and public utilities. Can you imagine having privatized roads? Or privatized electricity? Imagine having a different set of electrical lines for each provider of electricity.
Quote from HighrollerBut how, exactly, does an anarchic system with notions of property and property ownership work? Can I just claim whatever I want? What if two people claim the same plot of land?
Quote from HighrollerCan you imagine the ridiculousness that would result from privatized roads? Imagine competing road companies demanding that you pick a service provider.
Which is assuming that anyone gets a monopoly on roads and it's not just a fragmented multitude snatching up property wherever they can find because there's no government to regulate who has which property because **** laws.
Quote from VorthospikeQuote from StephenMeansMeFor example, people tend not to disagree with their own God; that is, their views strongly correlate with what they think God's views are (and sometimes against what their church thinks God's views are).
I'd say the reverse is true. When people change their mind they tend to "discover" that God always agreed with their new belief. The text of Bible has not changed dramatically in the last thousand years but Christianity has morphed and fragmented radically.
Quote from StephenMeansMeFor example, people tend not to disagree with their own God; that is, their views strongly correlate with what they think God's views are (and sometimes against what their church thinks God's views are).
Quote from AsteriskNonetheless, literal faith still has value for:
Reducing fear of death. Makes it easier to sacrifice self to save lives (or destroy them). Also greatly reduces stress as you get older and know the lights will go out soon.
Belief in divine justice minimizes the need for revenge. It's easier to be forgiving when you know someone will dole out the punishment at a later time. Sometimes people think they are the executors of God's judgement on earth, which is bad.
Strong, moral codes can advantageous not only to oneself, but to those around them. It the morality is based on doing good for others, everyone within the religious community can have strong, healthy relationships thanks to the moral guidelines established in their faith. It yields more comfortable, positive lives for those involved. If the morality is based on doing good for God, things become more repressive as is we are all failures to the creator and must be hammered into shape.
Religious people are easier to control, either self-control or control by others. Belief in God makes it easier for people to minimize their sinning and even use of hard drugs. If someone puts God in control of their lives, it is easier to live the way they choose to live, which would be the way of God. On the other hand, religions have always been involved in state-politics thus the more tangible use of control by religion has been to strengthen the Warlord/Monarch/Despot/State.